Team CRI have just launched Swarajya! Check it out!

(Arjuna said: O infallible one, please draw my chariot between the two armies so that I may see those present here, who desire to fight, and with whom I must contend in this great trial of arms.)

My friend NR Tatvamasi has provided us a brilliant perspective on the Mullaperiyar dispute and has delved deep into the issue to provide the POV of Tamil Nadu in this matter.

As I sit down to write my thoughts on the issue, I congratulate Tamil Nadu (TN) Chief Minister Dr. J Jayalalitha for reaching out to the people of Kerala and most of the points in her letter seems to have been inspired by Tatvamasi’s post. It’s often said, “ Conflict builds character, crisis defines it”. At this moment of crisis ,it would be the characters of the leaders on both sides, which would ensure that cordial relationships between both states are not affected.

At the outset I would want to say that although I was born a Malayali, I have spent most of my time outside the state (across India) and I’m currently based out of TN. Hence my points may not be an absolute POV of Kerala.

It has been reiterated many time over that Mullaperiyar is not an Inter State water-sharing dispute or is not a Water war as is being made out by some prominent national channels. The crux of the issue as of now lies in the safety of the dam as per Kerala and raising the height of water in the existing dam for TN.

If you clearly look at the circumstance of the 1886 agreement between Travancore King Sri. Moolam Thirunal Marathadavarma and the Secretary of State for the British in India, we can clearly see that it was an imperial power arm-twisting a small princely state into an unequal agreement. To say that the area was inaccessible prior to development of the dam premises by the British and hence the Maharaja gladly gave up his claim is untrue.

It has been documented that between 1817 and 1820 the Travancore Maharaja had laid claim to entire timber in the Cardamom hills (covering Adimali, Devikulam, Peermede, Rajakad, Rajakumari stretch) and the British appointed a conservator during this period. Infact the Maharajas were earning major revenues from the Timber and cardamom trading from this belt in association with The Aspin wall Co. Vishakam Thirunal the earlier Raja is believed to have resisted the attempts by the British to build a dam here from 1862.

Also the argument that a hitherto undeveloped area was developed thanks to building the dam by the British seems similar to the argument that, missionaries came down to India civilize a barbaric and superstitious population.

The Indian Independence Act , 1947 passed by the British Parliament , Section 7 , clearly states that “the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapses, and with it, all treaties and agreements in force at the date of the passing of this Act between His Majesty and the rulers of Indian States, all functions exercisable by His Majesty at that date with respect to Indian States, all obligations of His Majesty existing at that date towards Indian States or the rulers thereof, and all powers, rights, authority or jurisdiction exercisable by His Majesty at that date in or in relation to Indian States by treaty, grant, usage, sufferance or otherwise;”

Essentially this meant that the treaty of 1886 was null and void for all practical and legal purposes. TN did continue to enjoy the water and acquired factual rights over the water by the usage and possession of the same for a long period of time (parallels to Ayodhya case where court did look at long possession by parties as a means of acquiring title and ownership) .

The agreement was however renewed in 1970 by the Achuthamenon ministry who headed a CPI government backed by the Congress in a crafty coalition stitched together by K Karunakaran. The agreement was signed between the Secretaries of both states without discussions in the Legislature or approval. We have seen similar instances viz. 1) IAEA safeguards agreement & 123 Agreement signed by UPA without discussion in parliament 2) Mamta scuttling the Teesta water sharing agreement for lack of discussion in West Bengal, being criticized severely. The ideal situation would have been that such agreements need to debated among public at large and the feedback taken to legislatures.

Another argument put forward is under the linguistic reorganization of states, TN gave up rights to Idduki inspite of having a majority of Tamil speaking population there. Here we should also understand the context of the reorganization of the states. Nagercoil, which had a majority of Malayalam speaking population, was also given as part of Tamil Nadu. To go back and analyze what would have been the basis of this at this point seems a futile exercise.

Furthermore if you analyze the linguistic traits of Malayalam and its dialects, you will find that a pure form of Malayalam is spoken only in central Kerala. At all other places you will find influences of the language of the neighboring states, like in Trivandrum and Idduki areas you will find a lot of Tamil influences in the language. It is also true that both languages have lots in common in terms of words and usages and hence a pure linguistic division of Kerala or Tamil Nadu would be next of impossible especially along border areas.

The 1979 Incident and the curious case of the vanishing new dam

The Dam Safety issue shot into prominence after cracks and leaks were found in the Dam following some mild tremors in 1979. It is around that time that the Morvi Dam breached and , Malayalam Manorama , a leading Malayalam daily, ran a story titled “sahyasanukalil mattoru morvi ”(meaning Another Morvi in the Western Ghats).

The story reported on cracks and seepages in the existing Mullaperiyar dam. The story created tremendous impact in Kerala and a large-scale agitation was started. Startled by the agitations the union government entrusted CWC (Central Water Commission) to seize the matter and initiate discussions on strengthening the dam.

As per a submission of former Kerala water resource Minister NK Premachandran , in the ministerial level meeting between Kerala and TN in the presence of Union Minister for water resources in New Delhi on 18/12/2006 :

“The Expert Committee formed in 1979 to inspect the ailing dam held a discussion on 25/11/79 at 11 AM in Thiruvananthapuram. In this, one of the long term measures suggested to this issue was as follows: “A joint team of engineers from Tamil Nadu and Kerala will explore the possibility of locating a new dam within reasonable distance from the existing dam, within a month’s time, as an alternative to long term measures for strengthening the existing dam” (Annexure A). In the minutes drafted after the joint inspection of the team of engineers of Tamil Nadu and Kerala, it is stated that “the team feels after inspection of the site AA (1300 ft below the existing dam) and examination of other sites with reference to contour map, that site AA is the nearest possible alignment from geographical considerations without impairing the safety of the existing dam during construction of dam” (Annexure B).

The same has been signed by the representative of Tamil Nadu Sri. A. Mohanakrishnan. But, surprisingly, in the memorandum on ‘Strengthening Proposal of Mullaperiyar Dam’ submitted by the Central Water Commission in 1986 it is stated that it was decided to strengthen the existing dam and the case of construction of new dam was not pursued (Annexure C). In the Expert Committee report (March 2001) filed before the Supreme Court, it is stated that “Although originally it was suggested that the engineers of Tamil Nadu and Kerala will explore the possibility of locating a new dam within a reasonable distance from the existing dam, subsequently this was not found feasible and the proposal was dropped” (Annexure D).

It is not known what made them to say so. The measures taken in this direction are not known. The proposal to construct a new dam is the sustainable solution to assure water to Tamil Nadu and save the life of the downstream population. But from the above it is seen that this suggestion once put forward by the Central Water Commission, has been sidelined, on unknown grounds.”.

Experts are still baffled on why the original long-term proposal of building a new dam was dropped by the CWC. CWC still has not provided any concrete answers for the same.

A new dam proposal of the CWC just vanished without any reasons!

Strengthened or Did We?

There is no doubt that TN PWD adopted various strengthening measures under the CWC supervision. The measures included RCC topping , Cable Anchoring and RCC covering with foundation of the downstream side of the dam.

A cross section of the Mullaperiyar dam shows that the centre of the dam is still the lime and surkhi mixture of the old time. And since the dam could be never emptied there was no actual maintenance that could be carried out on the upstream side.

A cross section of the Mullaperiyar dam shows that the centre of the dam is still the lime and surkhi mixture of the old time.

It is this, which has been precisely the point of contention. Most of the cracks start getting exposed when the water level falls down. It has been generally believed by the experts that the lime had leeched away in the 65 years before the RCC capping works were carried out. Even TN’s star witness agreed to the fact MP dam looses 30 Tone / year of lime due to leeching, making it almost hollow at the centre.

The Remote Operate Vehicle survey and photography revealed further alarming facts on the state of the dam . A report submitted by M Sashidharan an member of Inter state water committee and a representative of Kerala during the ROV studies shows serious damage to the dam structure due to the unscientific RCC Topping.

The report suggests “Apart from innumerable pot holes, crevices and other openings that were visible on the surface of the dam, the masonry cover provided at the upstream side of the dam was seen to have undergone a crushing between 106 feet and 95 feet throughout the entire length of the dam”

It is suggested that there is currently strong evidence of the Lime leeching on the upstream end of the dam with huge voids, deep potholes, wide-open joints, deep crevices and hollowness. The report further says pre-stressing done by cable anchoring through the upstream masonry portion might have loosened and damaged the masonry.

The following table of the causes for dam failure from IIT Madras is quite revealing

The MP dam seems to suffer from 5 of the causes mentioned above.

The fact of 2006 SC Judgment

One of the major setbacks for Kerala for in the MP case has been the 2006 SC judgment where the division bench of YK Sabarwal , CK Thakker and PK Balasubramanyan ruled against the interests of Kerala and permitted Tamil Nadu to raise the water level of the Dam. When we look at the case holistically we understand that the Kerala interests were represented by the Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum and the Tamil Interest’s by Dr. Subramanyam Swamy.

While Swamy was backed to hilt by the TN providing all data required with best legal support, Kerala government were not so enthusiastic. The Kerala side’s arguments were weak and not supported by real scientific data. One of such goof ups were on the arguing the Dam was stated as a masonry dam whereas it was a composite dam. The calculation of seismic coefficients based on IS 1893:1984 was also wrongly interpreted. It is not know why such weak arguments were made but a recent report of TN CM ordering an intelligence investigation of properties gifted/owned by Kerala politicians in Theni, Cumbum and Madurai may be a pointer .

However what is interesting is that later, the SC did not strike down the “Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act 2006 , or popular called the Kerala Dam Safety Act to restrict the height of water to 136 feet.

If the act were unconstitutional we would have seen the SC strike it down with immediate effect. TN prayed to SC for to striking down the act that was nullifying the SC judgment, but we have not seen the SC even ordering a stay on the Act, but it did order for an Empowered Committee to study the issue. The Court did not see merit to stand by its earlier judgment and sought further hearing and studies.

There were some stinging remarks made by the SC judges for the Act of Kerala, but we need to see it in the context of being instigated by non-obedience of a brother judge’s verdict. If there was a case the SC, would have initiated contempt proceeding against the Kerala Govt ,but it didn’t do so.

We should also take into consideration there was no appeal mechanism as the case was transferred to SC for hearing by both HC’s and a review petition is not regarded an appeal.

Interestingly in this article on Judicial Dissent by Renowned SC Lawyer Navin Kumar he says “The Supreme Court does not easily acknowledge error or overturn its own past judgment’s. Stare Decisis, the authority of the past, has always and necessarily been a vital principle of the Court’s conduct. The Court bows to the lessons of experience and the force of better reasoning. The Court is, besides, and above all else, an institution– with all that the term implies regarding roots and a respect for tradition. What it comes down to, then, is recognition that precedent is a valuable stabilizer, not lightly to be overridden, yet not slavishly to be obeyed.” However in this case we see that the SC was ready to look again at its own earlier order. He further goes on to say “Justices of the Supreme Court are rarely TITANS, they are mortal men, endowed usually with more than ordinary intellectual powers and with exceptional richness of learning and with experience, but nevertheless subject like other mortal men to vagaries and failures of understanding. And so, from time to time, the Court confesses error and corrects itself, overturning its own past judgment, not capriciously on the basis of changing personal preferences but rationally, in the light of logic and experience. The process of self-correction has been repeated again and again when experience overrode a logic demonstrable in a later Judgment.”

Another issue in contention is the overwhelming dependence of the SC on the report of the CWC in this matter. The CWC maybe one of the premier institutions of the country but is not always however the most efficient. One such case has been the Jaswant Sagar dam breach were the CWC monitored strengthening measures funded by World Bank was found to be ornamental in nature and did not prevent a dam collapse in July 2007 .

The state CAG had severely criticized the State Dam Safety committee and the CWC in its report. The CWC also suffers from the fact that it doesn’t want to be seen going back on its earlier report which will point fingers at its efficiency. Another example of the lackadaisical attitude of the CWC on the issue of Dam safety has been that it took 25 years to draft a Dam Safety bill and when it submitted it the Parliament Standing Committee ridiculed the Commission for producing a ‘toothless’ Bill that doesn’t mention any penalty for violation of the Act and compensation to victims during disasters.

Yet another example of CWC’s bias stems from its calculation of PMF (Probable Maximum Flood Levels) for MP with respect to other Dams:

The performance of the TN Government on Dam safety in totality has also not been encouraging. TN was in receipt of funds from World Bank under the Dam Safety Project . In its 2000 report, the bank said that the CWC was not pro-active in dam safety measures. Tamil Nadu was criticized for its poor management of the Mullaperiyar dam and was chucked out of the project. The following observations the WB 2009 assessment report is interesting :

“In1998,TamilNadu state withdrew from the project because it failed to meet the revised performance targets during the project extension period,”

“The TamilNadu DSO has basic office facilities and some computer equipment, but lacks space even for storing past reports fromdams.”

It also be noted that the current spurt of information campaign has been spearheaded by a group of retired PWD senior officials. Is there something they would like to be hidden ??

Apples with Pumpkins

Some of the example given in support of the safety of the MP dam and strengthening is a case of comparing Apples to Pumpkins.

One such example is the Kallanai – Grand Anicut but by the Chola Kings in 2nd Century. The structure has underwent constant changes and that too over a period of time. The fact of the matter is that Kallanai is technically not a dam but a minor Water diversion structure on the Delta. Kallanai was originally made of large stones and has a height of 18ft, on the other end MP dam is located at 2890 ft above sea level, facing the populous state of Kerala built of Lime Surkhi and has a height of 176 ft.

The Grand Anicut – during drought season.

Another example given out is the renovation of Roosevelt Dam in USA, which underwent renovation in 1989 primarily to increase the capacity of the Dam. The Rubble Masonry dam was emptied almost fully and completely encased with Concrete. The reconstructed Dam was almost a new dam. The pics below prove the point.

However the same votaries fail to point out that USA also decommissioned their 1000th dam recently, or the case of Francis Dam disaster where seepages and cracks was mocked at and called “natural for a dam” till it breached. It sounds very similar to the tones heard on MP Dam cracks and seepages as of today.

Another case to be considered is that of Victoria Dam of Western Australia, where the old dam was built with cement concrete in 1891. In 1912 leakages were discovered in the dam due to leeched lime from the concrete. In 1912 and 1966 the upstream side of the dam wall was covered with reinforced concrete to reduce further leaking. However, a 1988 review of the dam’s design concluded that it lacked sufficient safety margins in the event of floods or earthquakes, and its concrete had degraded to such a level that it could not be repaired, and needed replacement. Sounds very similar isn’t it??

It is also surprising why people do not mention the Kodaganar Dam failure in TN in 1977 or the why Peranai Dam (made of Lime and Surkhi) downstream of Vaigai was rebuilt.

Couple of other incongruent arguments are the following:

1) A nuclear reactor built with latest technology and certified by the highest nuclear authorities, similar to CWC , is still unsafe for TN govt while a similar authorities report on MP seems to be acceptable.

2) Recently a check dam built at the cost of 14 cr by TN PWD nearly 9 months back collapsed when Vaigai was in spate. TN PWD, which certifies a 116 year old dam to be safe failed to build a fail safe check dam and didn’t calculate correct PMF levels (Probable Maximum Flood).

Another falsehood being spread is that Periyar originates from TN. It is a fact that Periyar does originate from Sivagiri peaks but is not situated in TN, not even a single drop of water of MP comes from the state of TN .

Some also say that 999-year lease agreement mean the lifetime of the existing dam was supposed to be 999 years. I wouldn’t like to comment on that!

Whither is the Problem?

As of now the issue really seems to stem from who would own and control a new Dam? The signals emanating have indicated TN wouldn’t really mind paying modified lease amounts and probably even share power generated with Kerala if a new Dam comes up.

I’m sure TN wouldn’t mind shelling out more than existing 10 lakh a year to KL for the welfare of its people when nearly 10,000 crore is spend for freebies. The point of contention seems to be that TN is insisting on ownership of the new Dam.

Kerala CM recently offered that the entire cost of new Dam will be borne by Kerala and the operation of Dam could be bilateral, trilateral, under centre or under a third party.

The contention of Kerala in giving ownership of the new dam to TN arises from the following facts:

TN seen as insensitive to safety of people of KL, hence cannot be trusted for the future.

TN argues for lower riparian rights in the case of Cauvery but has denied the same for Kerala time and again in the Parambikuam Aliyar Project.

Efforts made by TN earlier to block the IIT Delhi and IIT Roorkee reports in SC and Empowered committee. If they felt the report was wrong they could have demolished the report in cross-examinations.

Efforts made by TN to delay the Empowered Committee by not nominating members from TN initially to the committee.

In an article by Ramaswamy R Iyer,in 2006 , the former Secretary of Water Resources for the Government of India and a foremost expert in water issue says “Let us remember that the dam is 111 years old. There have been worries about its safety in the past. Regardless of the certification by the Central Water Commission, it seems to this writer that “the precautionary principle” should prevail. It would be wise to be very careful about subjecting the dam to any avoidable stress. Moreover, as between TN which wants more irrigation and Kerala which is worried about safety, greater weight should surely be given to the latter.”

He further says “The farmers of TN must remember their “rights” over Periyar waters are not natural or riparian rights; they are rights arising out of an agreement. They are receiving waters because Kerala has been good enough to give them that bounty. The attitude of TN farmers towards Kerala should be one of gratitude, and not one of anger or resentment. Secondly, Kerala government is entitled to exercise abundant caution about the safety of people, property, and wildlife in the state. Safety is paramount. TN’s efforts should be to reassure Kerala and assuage its anxiety, and not to complain about its unreasonableness or accuse it of politicizing the issue.”

Inspite of this prevalent feeling,the state of Kerala is ready to sign an agreement to perpetuity to supply more water to TN by raising the water storage in new dam to 142 for TN.

Way Ahead

The first step to be taken by either state, is to stop political posturing. Appeals, Counter Appeals and Open Letters appears to only worsen the situation as of now. Similarly public mocking of genuine safety concerns as fear mongering, irrational, unscientific seems to only further hurt the cause.

The ideal suggestion as of now seems to be build a bigger dam down stream and flood submerge the existing dam and store water at probably 152 feet and hand over the operations and maintenance to a Central PSU or agency on the lines if Neyveli .

Meanwhile TN should accelerate its river linking programs, increase reservoir capacity at Vaigai for more storage from existing withdrawals .

Meanwhile the following statement from an old article in Front seems very pertinent today “For every argument raised by Tamil Nadu in support of its claims, there is counter-argument in Kerala that appears equally plausible. Yet, each time the controversy gets embroiled in extraneous issues, two things stand out: One is Kerala’s refusal to acknowledge the genuine need of the farmers in the otherwise drought-prone regions of Tamil Nadu for the waters of the Mullaperiyar; the other is Tamil Nadu’s refusal to see that it cannot rely on or continue to expect more and more from the resources of an other State to satisfy its own requirements to the detriment of the other State. A solution perhaps lies in acknowledging the two truths, but neither government can afford the political repercussions of such a confession.”

Well compilation of the information is a single document. Hope it helps open some closed eyes.

Anonymous

Well-written article with photos and data from various sources… Kudos to the author and CRI. But I feel the article has failed to address the following key questions:

1. Is ‘safety’ the real issue? Apparently, the counsel for Kerala has submitted in SC that even if there is a breach in MP, the downstream Idukki can hold the entire water? If this is true, then 75% of your article goes ‘null and void’!

2. The arguments such as “Kerala govt didnt give good support to lawyer”, “even SC judges are fallible”, etc. sound uncannily similar to Arundhati Roy’s arguments for Afzal Guru.. One has to finally rely on somebody neutral?? And if everyone starts questioning SC judgments based on whether it suits them or not, wont we land in anarchy?

3. Just as you are arguing “why cant TN demolish IIT Delhi and Roorkee reports in the court?”, someone else can argue “why cant Kerala demolish CWC reports in the court?”

4. To say that the 999-year lease is null-and-void is disingenious.. If you can explain in 100 words about the Indian Independence Act 1947, wont the SC judges also not have applied their mind on this??

5. The language “1970 renewal was signed by two secretaries…” sounds as though these are some two individuals exchanging their personal property.. They were representing respective state governments! Either author is naive, or hoping the readers to be naive! This argument can be turned on its head by TN saying, if Kerala signs a water sharing agreement today, 5 years down the line someone like this author can argue “it was signed by two Secretaries…” and KL can wriggle out of its commitments!! So, KL should learn to honour the written commitment of its past rulers – be it past CMs (as in 1970) or past Kings!

Would appreciate a point-by-point rebuttal on specifics, pls..

http://twitter.com/prashanthkpp Prashanth K.P.

Jayapradeep, you have addressed the issue with a non partisan perspective. Some excellent research information mingled with some potent scientific clarification assuages the reader incredibly.

Fact of the matter remains that the political rhetoric being pumped up in both these states is distantly insignificant to what is ground realities. A neutral approach to those problems inherently visible to a layman’s naked eye should have largely addressed the issue. However, when political considerations overrule and overcome practicalities, the current confrontation is only inevitable.

Both yours and NR_Tatvamasi’s rejuvenating narratives on the Mullaperiyar Dam issue in fact can be adopted as guidelines by both the warring states to neutralize their current stand off. Instead of implicit finger pointing against each other neither states have constituted any technical authenticity to their respective claims, rather those provided have not been beyond suspect. Nevertheless, Kerala holds better technical arguments in their favor in comparison to Tamil Nadu.

Be that as it may, both the states should reminded themselves that they are inherently interdependent to the core in terms of culture, language, resources, borders so on and so forth.

Tamil Nadu has and continues to have remarkable agricultural progress despite its onerous climatic conditions. They showed tremendous resilience in combating their limitations with remarkable methods of water harvesting and other sustained agricultural methods that eventually saw bear considerable fruits of revenue by way of exporting their produce to neighboring states after domestic consumption. Cattle and poultry was raised with endearing passion that again saw reap rich dividends to the people of Tamil Nadu.

Kerala on the other hand, though overwhelmingly blessed with abundant water and other resources has depleted from being the rice bowl of the South to a mushrooming concrete jungle, eating away every single agricultural land that stood in its way. The predominant influx of *Gulf* money saw to the efficient destruction of its agricultural roots. The people on the contrary reveled in sanguine confidence that ‘money’ could buy them everything. Consequently, meat, poultry, milk, vegetables and other essential commodities are considerably imported from Tamil Nadu.

How ironic it is that these two interdependent states, one rich in water resources and the other arid and dry, deem it fit to fight over that one issue that is its oxygen! In an hypothetical confrontation, end result would be that parts of one state would die of thirst whilst parts of the other would die of hunger!!!

While there is no doubt that there is prodigious danger looming behind the dam structure thereby endangering the existence of human lives living in large numbers in and around the Mullaperiyar Dam and its water course, there is an equal amount of potential danger of long term drought to those areas totally dependent on MP waters too. Therefore, an amicable solution at the earliest is a must with narcissism and politics shoved out and reciprocal well being embraced in.

Trust better sense prevails. Meanwhile, I must appreciate Jayapradeep and NR_Tatvamasi in their respective sublime endeavors to highlight different perspectives with incredible diligence and maturity. I commend you both.

May the decision makers too have the same maturity and resolve and not end up like the proverbial unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable!

JAI HIND!

http://twitter.com/jayapradeep Jayapradeep Jiothis

Dear MR_Right_CRI

Thank you for your comment.

1. Safety is the primary issue. There was an oral submission of AG to the HC in kerala on safety and disaster management measures on Mullaperiyar. The submission was that as of now with Mullaperiyar at 10 TMC of water and idduki only half full idukki can store water from a broken Mullaperiyar. The AG’s also went onto say that this necessarily doesnt mean that Idduki would be able to withstand the pressure or what would happen if water level rises beyond present levels. AG’s submission had many other points on the safety which was not reported. One line out of AG’s oral submission was used and quoted out of context to create this smoke screen.

2.The point i made was that it was essentially a Private complaint and GOK didn’t take the case seriously . I have pointed out some flaws in the argument there specifically. There were many more flaws in arguments made my Kerala. Furthermore since the case was primarily fought first in the SC and had no appeal measures once the flaws were discovered. The reference to Judicial dissidence was to prove that there are rarely instances where SC overturns its own judgement and decided to look at it agan. This was a case where SC in response to Kerala Dam Safety Act didn’t stay or strike it down but prefer to hear the case all over again . Which was technically looking at its own judgement again . Secondly , i have pointed out to excessive reliance on CWC alone to arrive at the earlier judgement and not look at other sources or third party reports. This was primarily because GOK didn’t provide / fund / request for further studies. Its has a parallel to the validity of EVM’s questioned in the courts where the primary evidence / report was sought from EC , who themselves were the accused of not being truthful on the sanctity of the EVM’s. My argument clearly was if SC decides to revit its earlier judgement it would have been in light of new arguments / facts or as i quoted” The process of self-correction has been repeated again and again when experience overrode a logic demonstrable in a later Judgment.”

3.I havent explained in 100 words about the Indian Independence Act 1947 , but have actually quoted from the ACt and have given a Link to it. I have already given a link to the SC judgement and you can clearly see the Lease deed was not in question . To Quote from the judgement ” Dispute between Tamil Nadu and Kerala is not a ‘water dispute’. The right of Tamil Nadu to divert water from Peryar reservoir to Tamil Nadu for integrated purpose of irrigation or to use the water to generate power or for other uses is not in dispute. The dispute is also not about the lease granted to Tamil Nadu in the year 1886 or about supplementary agreements of 1970.” “The present dispute is not about the rights, duties and obligations or interpretation of any part of the agreement. As already noted, the controversy herein is whether the water level in the reservoir can presently be increased to 142 ft. having regard to the safety of the dam” . Hence kerala had not technically pressed for revisit of the lease.

4.To assume that i would regard the readers of a CRI blog to be naive itself seems laughable. If you look at my point on the 1970 supplementary agreement , i was mentioning that the agreement was not discussed in public or in legislature or the public at large. I have given other instances of where there was public outrage when such agreements where not discussed in legislature/parliament/public. There is no doubt that the agreements of the present day should be respected , but to say imperial agreements are sacrosanct is a strech. In that case we should still be having Imperial Titles , Privy purse etc.c

Hope i have answered ur queries.

http://twitter.com/jayapradeep Jayapradeep Jiothis

And i guess i missed out ur point 3. That is precisely what i have been calling for . All possible evidence should be presented be the IIT R , D reports , CWC reports etc. Each reports can be question and crossed and if they are false they will be exposed . My point was TN was not allowing the IIT reports to be presented and they had objected to it. Let me draw a parallel to the EVM case where the EC didnt allow proper external audit of its machines , govt tried to get foreign experts deported / arrested etc. The EC was of the point of view that only its assessment be considered. IS that the right approach ???

http://twitter.com/ganpat73 munusamy ganapathy

good neutral article.
when a britisher worked so hard to deliver water to the water starved areas of the than madras province what causes keralites even after 100 years to hate/take it as an insult.its almost impossible to find a keralite who doesnt have problem with TN control over the dam
when multinationals can run airports to malls within the state with the state having little control why this hatred and objections to a TN run dam.will the objection subside if its run by JAYPEE or pub sector on the lines of nuclear power corporations.
what if a neutral international body excluding tamilians and keralites cerify the dam as safe.will it be accepted
the slogan of safety for kerala,water for tamilnadu sounds too good to beleive.why should kerala spend thousands of crores for giving water to tamilnadu inlieu of?safety
will kerala be happy with the present dam if TN surrenders its rights over the dam to a neutral body after the dam being certified safe
where will the new dam be built. will it be in the same location giving the same amount of water to TN or at a different location

http://twitter.com/ganpat73 munusamy ganapathy

It has been documented that between 1817 and 1820 the Travancore Maharaja had laid claim
to entire timber in the Cardamom hills (covering Adimali, Devikulam,
Peermede, Rajakad, Rajakumari stretch) and the British appointed a
conservator during this period. Infact the Maharajas were earning major
revenues from the Timber and cardamom trading from this belt in
association with The Aspin wall Co. Vishakam Thirunal the earlier Raja
is believed to have resisted the attempts by the British to build a dam
here from 1862.

is this the real reason behind the mask of safety.is mullaiperiyar considered another babrimasjid celebrating/representing victory of the enemy and has to be razed down
kerala lost the battle on the lease agreement and hence create an alarm on safety.this is the point of TN.is it true or false
is kerala agreeing to build the dam in the same location or at a different location.who and what will be the criteria for deciding the location of the dam

http://twitter.com/jaideepb Jaideep Bhattacharje

this article is , i guess, a reply to the one written by Mr. tatvamasi & published by CRI. first & foremost, i should congratulate CRI for publishing the write ups of these two gentlemen & many such writers in the past. these are the real intellect that we have and by far, much better than the ones we see on mainstream news channels.

having said so, i congratulate Mr. Tatvamasi & Mr. Jiothis for sharing their perspective which is , if i can say it, also representative of sentiments of both the states in question. a very well done job.

i am not from either state and from what i read in both the columns of these gentlemen & overall news being published, i feel the following:

1) Media hype – the mainstream media (read electronic media’s) approach towards the problem has to be toned down and should be channelised in the right direction. an atmosphere of ambiguity & animosity should not be encouraged. there are enough and more people who believe in these media to the T. moreover, i feel that in occurence of such problems, there are visible & invisible forces who tend to accentuate & lengthen the conflict rather than solving it. what is their agenda- might be to create & suatain problems in our integrity.

2) way forward for both the states – rather than Mr. Oomen Chandy leading an all party delegation to PM, Ms. Jayalalitha sharing her own theory & DMK leaders going on one day’fast’ (i wonder who the fast helped), it is better that both the sides face each other in the right ernest and try to solve the problems. discussions will solve this problem and not mere politicking.

3) if the dam is 111 years old, why can’t both the parties under the guidance of centre & ,more importantly, the Hon’ble SC, decide to close the present MP dam. both the sides can jointly work out the logistics.

remember, at the end of the day the politicos are not suffering but the common people will. anyways, in years to come, world will witness war over water. so why haste that, yet to come trend, inside our country. we have not yet become so disintegrated as to let a disagreement over , a common resource like water, assume the proportions of a war.

Ulaganathan P

A well written article, with a tinge of excusable bias in favour of Kerala. What he concludes is very encouraging. The basic fear of TN farmers is that the demolition of the existing dam will spell doom for their livelihood and their hitherto irrigated lands will turn fallow and barren. The spectre of drought and famines is deeply etched in his psyche. I do not know how and if the newly proposed dam will vouchfor the continued supply of (more) water to TN. Is it technically feasible to divert water to TN from a dam that is proposed to be constructed in an area much lower than the present dam? No body from the Kerala side had talked on this aspect. Since, construction of an alternate dam comes from the Kerala side, the onus of convincing TN of continued supply from the new dam is on them.

Some body pointed out in some tamil news channels that the project report of the Kerala government on the new dam has two most pernious provisions, which is seriously undermining the interests of TN viz. firstly, that it says TN have no legal rights over the MP water; and secondly, they say that they would provide water to TN, subject to availability of waters. This subjective clause can mean anything. One may always say that there is not water to spare… sorry… pray for more rains next seasons. We dread the fine prins in the new agreement. Further, I do not understand the argument that there is no valid legal right for TN over the MP waters, even after the 1970 agreement. You can always find fault with your decision making authorities in retrospect and abrogate their actions. While, the Keralites have been admirably vocal in articulating their fear over the status of the MP dam, they have so far shown a singular insensitivity to the fears of the TN farmers.

This is no longer the land where statemen like EMS, AKG and Achuda Menon were born who considered all people alike. This is not the Kerala that I know.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JJFZ5EACVMK5EGQ6NE3VOAPDSY KARTHIKHEYAN

Mr. Jiothis,

1. “In this, one of the long term measures suggested to this issue was as follows: “A joint team of engineers from Tamil Nadu and Kerala will explore the possibility of locating a new dam within reasonable distance from the existing dam, within a month’s time, as an alternative to long term measures for strengthening the existing dam”.

It is one of the suggestion only & not a decision. Suggestions can be taken back when it is nt feasible. The reason for not going with a new dam is the, when u see the present channel structure of the flow of water frm MP to TN it goes through tunnels at an elevated path from the current height. But when that proposed dam is build in case, water could not be taken to TN from the lower height proposed. that is the reason , why subsequently the proposal was not
found feasible and the proposal was dropped. It is for the same reason, why this SUGGESTION was cut down, during the DECISION MAKING PERIOD. you have made lot of readings on SC & verdicts, but still SURPISED for dropping the idea of new dam. I feel pity you for not understanding this basic thing. The suggestion once put forward by the Central Water Commission, has been sidelined, on known
grounds only, not unknown as you think.

2. “It is suggested that there is currently strong evidence of the Lime leeching on the upstream end of the dam with huge voids, deep potholes, wide-open joints, deep crevices and hollowness. The report further says pre-stressing done by cable anchoring through the upstream masonry portion might have loosened and damaged the masonry.”

I don’t really know why it is always suggested instead of evidence, when it comes to the Point Of View of Kerala. And it needs a shrewd (sic) mind to rebut the strengthening process itself by claiming that the same caused damage to the structure.

Here you have touched the basic point of difference btn Kerala’s argument & TN’s which has lot of scientific data in it compared to Kerala’s. That is why SC sees reason in all its judgments, even in its latest judgment refusing to bring down the water level.

4. “Interestingly in this article on Judicial Dissent by renowned SC Lawyer Navin Kumar he says “The Supreme Court does not easily acknowledge error or overturn its own past judgment’s.”

The SC has taken a middle path in most of the contentious issues till now provided the arguments of both the parties are reasonable, but at the same time it has not favored unreasonable arguments & that is why it has not settled for a middle path in this issue and stands with the truth in all of its judgments. Since you have quoted a lot abt laws, I presume you know something about the BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION and the history behind this, like how it got evolved in time and brought into prominence in all the important judgments regarding the constitution. In the process, the SC has revisited its verdicts for the good of the nation. So it is not true that SC will never overrun its own past judgments.

5. “Ramaswamy Iyer has said that “as between TN which wants more irrigation and Kerala which is worried about safety, greater weight should surely be given to the latter.”

Here I wish Ramaswamy Iyer understands properly of what does irrigation means. It is not the well being of just soil and crops alone, rather the end products of irrigation which serves the hungry stomachs both in TN and Kerala. If irrigation is not given proper importance, then people will die of starvation, not before witnessing food riots (as seen in Argentina a year before) and rising price & its consequences. So, if ever there should be a holistic approach as you wish, it should take care of all safeties including irrigation, hunger & life.

6. “A solution perhaps lies in acknowledging the two truths, but neither government can afford the political repercussions of such a confession.”

This is what the crux of the problem is. The by-elections in Kerala play a major part in the recent rhetoric. I also see the cause of dam failure due to earthquake is at 1% in the data you quote from the IIT Madras, when people speak a lot about the danger mainly due to earthquake that too of 6 magnitudes. It becomes futile when the MP region falls in the seismic zone where the maximum possible occurrence of an earthquake is only at 3 in Richter’s scale. This sums up the whole argument against the unscientific arguments of one state, which is known to all.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JJFZ5EACVMK5EGQ6NE3VOAPDSY KARTHIKHEYAN

Mr. Jiothis,

1. ” In this, one of the long term measures suggested
to this issue was as follows: “A joint
team of engineers from Tamil Nadu and Kerala will explore the possibility
of locating a new dam within reasonable distance from the existing dam, within
a month’s time, as an alternative to long term measures for
strengthening the existing dam”.

It is one
of the suggestion only & not a decision. Suggestions can be taken
back when it is nt feasible. The reason for not going with a new dam is the,
when u see the present channel structure of the flow of water frm MP to TN it
goes through tunnels at an elevated path from the current height. But when that
proposed dam is build in case, water could not be taken to TN from the lower
height proposed. that is the reason , why subsequently the proposal was not found feasible and the proposal was
dropped.
It is for the same reason, why this SUGGESTION was cut down, during the
DECISION MAKING PERIOD. you have made lot of readings on SC &
verdicts, but still SURPISED for dropping the idea of new dam. I feel pity you
for not understanding this basic thing. The suggestion once put forward by the Central Water Commission, has been sidelined, on known
grounds only,
not unknown as you think.

2. “It is suggested that there is
currently strong evidence of the Lime leeching on the upstream end of the dam
with huge voids, deep potholes, wide-open joints, deep crevices and hollowness.
The report further says pre-stressing done by cable anchoring through the
upstream masonry portion might have loosened and damaged the masonry.”

I don’t really
know why it is always suggested instead
of evidence, when it comes to the Point Of View of Kerala. And it needs a shrewd
(sic) mind to rebut the strengthening
process itself by claiming that the same caused damage to the structure.

Here you
have touched the basic point of difference btn Kerala’s argument & TN’s
which has lot of scientific data in
it compared to Kerala’s. That is why SC sees reason in all its judgments, even
in its latest judgment refusing to bring down the water level.

4. “Interestingly
in this article on
Judicial Dissent by renowned SC Lawyer Navin Kumar he says “The Supreme Court
does not easily acknowledge error or overturn its own past judgment’s.”

The SC has
taken a middle path in most of the contentious issues till now provided the arguments
of both the parties are reasonable, but at the same time it has not favored
unreasonable arguments & that is why it has not settled for a middle path
in this issue and stands with the truth in all of its judgments. Since you have
quoted a lot abt laws, I presume you know something about the BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION and
the history behind this, like how it got evolved in time and brought into prominence
in all the important judgments regarding the constitution. In the process, the
SC has revisited its verdicts for the good of the nation. So it is not true
that SC will never overrun its own past judgments.

5. “Ramaswamy Iyer has said that “as between TN which wants more irrigation and
Kerala which is worried about safety, greater
weight should surely be given to the latter.”

Here I wish
Ramaswamy Iyer understands properly of what does irrigation means. It is not
the well being of just soil and crops alone, rather the end products of irrigation which serves the hungry stomachs
both in TN and Kerala. If irrigation is not given proper importance, then
people will die of starvation, not before witnessing food riots (as seen in
Argentina a year before) and rising price & its consequences. So, if ever
there should be a holistic approach
as you wish, it should take care of all safeties including irrigation, hunger &
life.

6. “A
solution perhaps lies in acknowledging the two truths, but neither government
can afford the political repercussions of such a confession.”

This is what
the crux of the problem is. The by-elections in Kerala play a major part in the
recent rhetoric. I also see the cause of
dam failure due to earthquake is at 1% in the data you quote from the IIT Madras,
when people speak a lot about the danger mainly due to earthquake that too of 6
magnitudes. It becomes futile when the MP region falls in the seismic zone
where the maximum possible occurrence of an earthquake is only at 3 in Richter’s
scale. This sums up the whole argument against the unscientific arguments of
one state, which is known to all.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JJFZ5EACVMK5EGQ6NE3VOAPDSY KARTHIKHEYAN

Mr. Jiothis,

1. ” In this, one of the long term measures suggested to this issue was as follows: “A joint team of engineers from Tamil Nadu and Kerala WILL EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY of locating a new dam within reasonable distance from the existing dam, within a month’s time, as an alternative to long term measures for strengthening the existing dam”.

It is one of the SUGGESTION ONLY & NOT A DECISION. Suggestions can be taken back when it is nt feasible. The reason for not going with a new dam is the, when u see the present channel structure of the flow of water frm MP to TN it goes through tunnels at an elevated path from the current height. But when that proposed dam is build in case, water could not be taken to TN from the lower height proposed. that is the reason , why subsequently the proposal was not
found feasible and the proposal was dropped. It is for the same reason, why this SUGGESTION was cut down, during the DECISION MAKING PERIOD. you have made lot of readings on SC & verdicts, but still SURPRISED for dropping the idea of new dam. I feel pity you for not understanding this basic thing. The suggestion once put forward by the Central Water Commission, HAS BEEN SIDELINED, O KNOW GROUNDS ONLY, not unknown as you think.

2. “It is suggested that there is currently strong evidence of the Lime leeching on the upstream end of the dam with huge voids, deep potholes, wide-open joints, deep crevices and hollowness. The report further says pre-stressing done by cable anchoring through the upstream masonry portion might have loosened and damaged the masonry.”

I don’t really know why it is ALWAYS SUGGESTED INSTEAD OF EVIDENCE, when
it comes to the Point Of View of Kerala. And it needs a shrewd (SIC) mind to rebut the strengthening process itself by claiming that the same caused damage to the structure.

Here you have touched the basic point of difference btn Kerala’s argument & TN’s which HAS LOT OF SCIENTIFIC DATA in it compared to Kerala’s. That is why SC sees reason in all its judgments, even in its latest judgment refusing to bring down the water level.

4. “Interestingly in this article on Judicial Dissent by renowned SC Lawyer Navin Kumar he says “The Supreme Court does not easily acknowledge error or overturn its own past judgment’s.”

The SC has taken a middle path in most of the contentious issues till now provided the arguments of both the parties are reasonable, but at the same time it has not favored unreasonable arguments & that is why it has not settled for a middle path in this issue and stands with the truth in all of its judgments. Since you have quoted a lot abt laws, I presume you know something about the BASIC
STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION and the history behind this, like how it got evolved in time and brought into prominence in all the important judgments regarding the constitution. In the process, the SC has revisited its verdicts for the good of the nation. So it is not true that SC will never overrun its own past
judgments.

5. “Ramaswamy Iyer has said that “as between TN which wants more irrigation and Kerala which is worried about safety, greater weight should surely be given to the latter.”

Here I wish Mr. Ramaswamy Iyer understands properly of what does irrigation means. It is not the well being of just soil and crops alone, RAHER THE END PRODUCTS OF IRRIGATION WHICH SERVES THE HUNGRY STOMACHS both in TN and Kerala.
If irrigation is not given proper importance, then people will die of starvation, not before witnessing food riots (as seen in Argentina a year before) and rising price & its consequences. So, if ever there should be a HOLISTIC APPROACH as you wish, it should take care of all safeties including irrigation, hunger & life.

6. “A solution perhaps lies in acknowledging the two truths, but neither government can afford the political repercussions of such a confession.”

This is what the crux of the problem is. The by-elections in Kerala play a major part in the recent rhetoric. I also see the CAUSE OF DAM FAILURE DUE TO
EARTHQUAKE IS AT 1% in the data you quote from the IIT Madras, when people
speak a lot about the danger mainly due to earthquake that too of 6 magnitudes. It becomes futile when the MP region falls in the seismic zone where the maximum possible occurrence of an earthquake is only at 3 in Richter’s scale. This
sums up the whole argument against the unscientific arguments of one state,
which is known to all.

http://twitter.com/jayapradeep Jayapradeep Jiothis

Dear Munuamy,
Thank you for your comment.
The statement on the Travancore laying claim to timber was to rebutt a point made by some analysts that the area was not developed earlier on and the Travancore king voluntarily gave the land to britishers .

I would not comment on the political angle of the issue , politicians of both states are taking advantage of the issue. I am speaking of the factual position of safety which is the real fear of the people of kerala.
Most of the malayalees do not see tamils as enemies as you put it and don’t want to raze down a existing dam. Please understand as of now Kerala provides water to TN from Siruvani and PAP , even now the slogan is “Water for TN , Safety for Kerala”.
The new dam site identified currently is 366 downstream of the existing dam , a spot identified earlier by CWC , KL and TN. The proposed site will have provisions to provide water to TN without even loss of a drop.

Subscribe to our mailing list

Like us on Facebook

Categories

Categories

Recent Comments

gk: Are you running some university where you gave yourself '100' level knowledge rating? If you have s…

gk: >>>>>So what? words get added,changed and removed as time goes on You really do not h…

Sekar Devaraj: You have to study more, your knowledge level is "0". Please study and comeback to discuss here.…